It looks like you're enjoying the forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members and much more. Register now!

Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.

While everyone was preoccupied by how much cum was on Monica's dress Al-Qaeda grew, killed hundreds by blowing US embassies and planned for 9/11.

So yes, a bit of a distraction.

I'm not sure that's a real equivalence. The threat of Al-Qaeda during the 90s was pretty minimal, and for most of that decade was focused in and around Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda didn't so much grow, as a large number of the mujahardeen internationals, went back to their own countries. Al-Qaeda never really was a military organisation, it was far more logistical and based around communication between Muslim nations and volunteers.

As a result when these Jyhadists returned home, and started their own conflicts, they were connected effectively by Al-Qaeda to other similar organisations, and Al-Qaeda became more of a brand for Jyhadist revolutionaries and an infrastructure linking and providing funding for them.

The degree to which Al-Qaeda was involved in 9/11 is much more logistical and financial, than being directly responsible. Al-Qaeda did what it did during the Afghan war, but on a global scale - it provided funds, and put groups in contact with other groups in terms of providing infrastructure - It didn't so much plan and run operations as provide funds, contacts and source people for them.

The US never really took its eye of the ball because of Clinton-Lewinski, it simply wasn't that interested. It was striking at groups that were affiliated to Al-Qaeda notably in response to the USS Cole and Embassy bombings - but realistically, the attention had shifted because of the fall of the Soviet Union, had left the US as the only superpower. Its easy to see in hindsight, but realistically, Al-Qaeda never really was considered a major threat, until 9/11 happened. It didn't warrant massive attention in terms of Foreign intelligence.

The media in the US took no real interest in Al Qaeda, hence my flippant remark about Lewinsky. I stand by the notion though that excessive focus on sleaze is dangerous, both in terms of where the real scrutiny should be and the actions taken by administration to distract from negativity. I ultimately don't really care that Trump ploughed a pornstar, that's for his wife to resolve.

I disagree with your points on Al Qaeda. They had intel and they underestimated it - thousand of Americans and their allies died, most of them on US soil. Clinton regrets not killing OBL, the 9/11inquiry identified up to 9 moments when it could have been done.

As for Al Qaeda not being a military organisation? They funded and coordinated the attacks. They had terrorist training camps (at the time of the embassy bombings). The plan was hatched on one of hhose training camps (at the time of the embassy bombings). So I suppose it depends on your definition of military organisation.

DNC “lone hacker” Guccifer 2.0 pegged as Russian spy - To view the link you have to Register or Login

Maybe Roger Stone and the rest of the Trump team will now be less gushing and embracing of this fellow and his hacked materials now. I'm sure they had no idea about his origins beforehand . Russian link number 784343.

DNC “lone hacker” Guccifer 2.0 pegged as Russian spy - To view the link you have to Register or Login

Maybe Roger Stone and the rest of the Trump team will now be less gushing and embracing of this fellow and his hacked materials now. I'm sure they had no idea about his origins beforehand . Russian link number 784343.